Apostles intelligence information? Education issues?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Struggling1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Struggling1

Guest
How do we know that the apostles were smart enough to accurately recall and understand the miracles they witnessed accurately and it was issues beyond there understanding? My understanding is they were illiterate?
 
Some were illiterate.
But so was most of the population.

Matthew being a tax collector would have been likely literate and possibly wrote down an early recording of sayings and possibly even events, which would make sense with the Church fathers’ statements that Matthew wrote first his gospel.

Of course, education=/=intelligence. They were shown to not understand what Jesus was saying multiple times. Yet, after the Resurrection, they had known Jesus for 40 days and then received the Holy Ghost, opening their eyes to the Scripture and understanding.
 
Well, St John & St Paul surely were not illiterate.

And even if they were, illiterate (in those days) didn’t automatically mean they were stupid.

Intelligence is a person’s potential for knowledge, not a measure of their currently education.

I’m sure they were all very intelligent & became very wise.

Btw - today, we have a lot of people with advanced college degrees who are not very intelligent nor wise.
 
One objection I’ve heard is they were fisherman so how were they able to understand what they witnessed as they also didn’t have modern understandings of the natural world that may have explained some of the miracles witnessed back then.
 
Last edited:
Struggling1 said:
One objection I’ve heard is they were shepherds so how were they able to understand what they witnessed
Click to expand...
Most were fishermen, and their occupation doesn’t make them stupid.
Struggling1 said:
they also didn’t have modern understandings of the natural world that may have explained some of the miracles witnessed back then.
Click to expand...
The multiplication of the loaves and fishes could not be explained by natural circumstances. And wouldn’t it be odd for all these natural circumstances to follow one Person?
 
Last edited:
Struggling1 said:
One objection I’ve heard is they were shepherds so how were they able to understand what they witnessed as they also didn’t have modern understandings of the natural world that may have explained some of the miracles witnessed back then.
Click to expand...
I would argue that most of them had a better understanding of the natural world that most people do today.

They worked outdoors, often slept outdoors. Conditions were harsh. If you didn’t learn how to get food, you died.

They sailed the entire Mediterranean with just the stars. They traveled all alround the Roman Empire without cars, plains, and Google Maps. And they built massive aqueducts, buildings, and sewer systems without modern science or calculus. Heck, some aqueducts are STILL being used today.

How many people today could live off the land? How many people today would die if we lost power & were sent back to the 1700s (let alone 32 AD)?

People are educated in things society needs and in what gets them fed, clothed, and a roof. Reading and writing were not necessary to farming, fishing, metalwork, military, etc back then. Today, they are.

Point is, they knew the natural world much better than we moderns give them credit for and frankly the average person would have been more in touch with the REALITIES of natural world that we are today. Sure, we might know the science behind what is going on in the natural world than they did, but they surely knew how to LIVE in the natural world much better than us.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for helping deal with one more concern of mine! You are always amazing and I hope to help pay it forward or repay it one day!
 
I would say that people who lived out of doors and with animals have a very good idea of how the natural world works, rather than a scholar who just reads about things.

Reading is fundamental. But so is real world experience.
 
There were not shepherds. They were fisherman…Matthew was a tax collector He had to be pretty savvy to collect funds and keep track of them.
The premise of this thread really dismisses SAINTS
No bueno.
 
Not trying to dismiss merely understand and learn what’s true instead of what I hear!
 
Sorry I didn’t realize I put shepherds instead of fisherman! Thank you so much again!
 
Illiteracy doesn’t equate stupidity, or even lack of intelligence. Think of someone like Frederick Douglass, who became literate but obviously possessed the intellect and ability to first learn to read and write. On the other hand, Steven Hawking had a brilliant mind and likely died a convicted atheist.

You’re reading of “Case for Christ” will also give you a good answer to this question.
 
They were literate in the sense that they were willing to reach out in faith, to accept what made perfect sense to them at times, and what was something that no one had ever advanced before.
Like equality.
They were the ones who had ears to hear.
We should all be all be like them.
Willing to learn.
 
Kei said:
Some were illiterate.

But so was most of the population.
Click to expand...
This is not accurate. Jewish boys could learn to read the Torah in synagogue. They learned to read and write Hebrew. We do not know what the literacy rates were in the ancient world, but the Hebrews did educate their male children.

John, a fisherman, wrote the Gospel of John and the letters of John. Peter wrote letters. Paul of course wrote letters, and he was educated in Hebrew and Greek. Jesus read and wrote, reading from the Torah in synagogue, and he was a “poor” carpenter.

We do not know the details of every apostle, but there is no reason to assume they were illiterate.

And, as you have pointed out, whether or not they could read does not equate to intelligence or ability to pass on what they learned from Jesus via a scribe.
 
Struggling1 said:
How do we know that the apostles were smart enough to accurately recall and understand the miracles they witnessed accurately and it was issues beyond there understanding?
Click to expand...
Because their intellect was illuminated by God himself.
Struggling1 said:
My understanding is they were illiterate?
Click to expand...
That is not based on any facts. We know factually that several were literate, as they wrote gospels and epistles. We do not know about the others, but we do know that Jewish male children could learn to read and write Hebrew in the synagogue.

There is no reason to assume they were illiterate. This is projecting back onto the ancient world our own ideas about how things were. Not based in any facts about the Apostles.

However, literacy was not strictly necessary, and would have no bearing on the Apostles if they were. Firstly because most sagas, stories, histories, etc, were told orally in the ancient world and the Apostles would have been no different in being able to memorize long recitations. Secondly, it would not be difficult to employ scribes and disciples who could write in order to commit to written form what was necessary. Thirdly, the mission of the Church has always been teaching and preaching-- and all of this was done orally. There was no commission to write, although certainly several did write down the traditions into gospel and epistle form. Our faith is not based on a book, it is based on Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation came to us in the person of Jesus and he taught, he did not write. His disciples taught. Some wrote down what they taught. Therefore, Divine Revelation consists of both what is taught (Sacred Tradition) and that portion of it that was written down (Sacred Scripture).
 
If you read the Gospels, you’ll see that the Apostles are constantly misunderstanding Jesus, and he has to go back and explain things to them over and over. Literacy is a side issue. We don’t know who wrote the Gospels–we’ve attached traditional names, but that doesn’t mean much. Jesus had wealthier followers–Joseph of Aramathea, for example. And certainly Paul had wealthy patrons. So leaving aside the Apostles, some of whom may have been literate, there would have been a number of literate Christians from the beginning. What we do know is that the Church functioned from the death of Jesus (c. 30-33 AD) to the first epistles of Paul (c. 50 AD) quite well without a written scripture. And of course John wasn’t written until around 90 AD–another 40 years on top of that. So it’s a minimum of 60 years without the New Testament as we know it. We also know that there were other writings that the Gospels were based on (Q, L, M, etc.) that pre-date them. Paul also quotes early creeds and prayers here and there. So there were things being written down. But the guarantee was that the Holy Spirit would be with them and guide them. And the Church relied on oral tradition. Keep in mind the Church authenticated the Gospels and Epistles, not the other way around (as our Protestant friends think). In the Catholic Church, the tradition of the Church is just as important as the New Testament (as you can see, for logical reasons).
 
Last edited:
Erikaspirit16 said:
If you read the Gospels, you’ll see that the Apostles are constantly misunderstanding Jesus, and he has to go back and explain things to them over and over.
Click to expand...
However, after the Resurrection, Jesus taught the Apostles and sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. He illuminated their intellect, equipping them for their mission.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top